Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation of four gold bangles without even permitting payment of any duty, redemption fine or penalty seems to be an extreme measure hence detained gold bangles being personal jewellery are directed to be released.
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed an appeal by the tax department against Manoj Bahl, ruling it was not maintainable after the department issued a new notice under Section 153C.
Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition inspite of availability of an alternate remedy since there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, writ allowed and final order of NCLT set aside.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that a show-cause notice issued without granting reasonable time to respond to audit queries violates natural justice and is not valid.
Orissa High Court held that challenge against reversal of Input Tax Credit [ITC] under GST not entertained due to availability of alternative remedy to appeal before appellate authority under section 107 of GST Act. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a tax order against a deceased person is legally void. Revenue can initiate new proceedings against the legal heirs under Section 93 of the CGST Act.
Madras High Court held that petitioners are not entitled for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation since gold imported beyond the permissible limit of 1 Kg is to be treated as prohibited items as per the provisions of section 2(33) of the Customs Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere titular ownership of bank account is not conclusive. Thus, addition u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained without proper inquiry into identity of actual beneficiary of cash deposits.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of claim of loss alleging participation in price rigging cannot be sustained since nothing is brought on record to demonstrate involvement of assessee in price rigging. Accordingly, claim of loss allowed.
Gauhati High Court held that Summary of SCN issued in Form GST DRC-01 doesn’t substitute proper SCN. Thus, mere issuance of summary of SCN is not valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.
